originally posted by: adrenochrome
It's not natural. Period. It's not how nature works or functions.

There is no benefit from it except for pleasure, which follows lust.

This keeps popping up. Even though it's been sufficiently countered by many debaters.

Yet none of those that makes the statement has been able to clear up exactly what is considered natural...?

It's not natural.

We've already had plentiful discussions (in this very thread alone) showing that homosexuality naturally occurs throughout the animal kingdom.

But let's pretend we're not animals. I know, I know. Let's just pretend we're more than animals..

So homosexuality is "not natural". Homosexuality is an attraction to a person of the same sex. Love. A longing. Sexuality can be expressed via a
multitude of ways or levels like beliefs, attitudes, values, thoughts, desires, practices, roles and many more. It can be shared on a physical,
emotional, spiritual or social level. What exactly is unnatural about the need for companionship. Human beings are social creatures. You have the need
to be with other people (admittedly many days you don't - especially that idiot that works in HR that always wants to chat about his cat). But still -
it's human nature.

I'm guessing it might refer to the very central part of homosexuality? Sexuality... Sex. And I'm guessing the very first thought that pops into some
(homophobes') heads is anal sex. I hope you are sitting down, because about to follow is some profound information.

In a 2011 study published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine a study was published which was done on a sample of 24,787 gay and bisexual men. They had
to answer a questionnaire on their last sexual encounter.

The single most commonly reported behavior was kissing on the mouth (74.5%).
Followed by oral sex (72.7%).
Third was mutual masturbation (68.4%).
Here comes the important part... hold on to your hat... A bit more than one third of men in the study reported engaging in anal sex (37.2%)

Let's just repeat that slowly. The majority of gay men do not prefer anal sex... Many of them have never engaged in it and never
will.

But wait. We're not done yet...

According to the CDC’s (U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention) National Health Statistic Report, 44 percent of straight men and 36
percent of straight women have engaged in anal sex at least once in their lifetime. Source

The survey, released last year, showed that 38.2 percent of men between 20 and 39 and 32.6 percent of women ages 18 to 44 engage in heterosexual
anal sex. Compare that with the CDC’s 1992 National Health and Social Life survey, which found that only 25.6 percent of men 18 to 59 and 20.4
percent of women 18 to 59 indulged in it. Source

So not only are heterosexuals also inclined to have anal sex, their interest nearly doubled in the past two decades...

Yes, I know we will never know the exact statistics. The point is however in at least one study almost a third of the heterosexual male population
participated in anal sex with someone of the opposite sex. So, if a third of the population found a willing partner (never mind showing interest in
it) that does not count for "natural"?

I'm also guessing "natural" refer to the idea that humans should/must/purpose is to populate the earth, i.e. have kids. So why is oral sex so popular
- especially among men (of all sexualities)? Oral sex is no good for the survival of the species... Yet

Two-thirds of Americans aged 15 to 24 have engaged in oral sex, according to a broad new survey of young people's sexual habits. So
urce

Same goes for masturbation. Between 92-95% of the men and 62-80% women have masturbated or masturbate regularly. With percentages like that, it's most
definitely natural. But it's not getting anyone pregnant. Well, not on purpose and not without some effort that is.

So to sum up: Your idea of "natural" means the male human must only have sex with the female human to get her pregnant in order to reproduce. But when
we look at human sexual nature, we find that there's a lot of sexual activity going on among heterosexual people that does not involve reproduction.
And I just touched the tip of the iceberg here, but I think I made my point.

Should we make our definition a bit more general?
Is it natural for humans to wear clothes? Is it natural for humans to pierce their ears (and all kinds of other stuff) and put metal through the
holes? Is it natural for humans to fly across the Atlantic? Is it natural for humans to go to space? Is it natural for humans to eat Oreos? Is it
natural for humans to sit in front of an electrical device that sends electromagnetic waves through the air to someone else's electrical device on the
other side of the planet and argue about what is natural?

Let's be honest with each other. Very little is "natural" about modern Homo Sapiens. Sexuality - all flavors of it - is actually one of the few things
that is still natural about humans. It's been there for thousands of years. It will be there for the next couple of thousand.

So here's a suggestion. Crawl out of the cave, Homo Erectus, and embrace the brave new world where people are once accepting something that has
always been there. Something that is natural in every possible way and meaning of the word. It's not going to hurt you unless you try to hurt it.

Sadly it pops up, because bigots will be bigots, and their pastors/priests/rabbi/etc have told them that it is "unnatural" and "dirty" and "against
Jehovah/God/Allah". There is no logic what so ever in their argument, and when you show proof to the contrary, they say "we should not use the animal
kingodom as a guide"... which is it chaps?

It's worse than that. Not only is there no logic in their arguments, there is no sense either.

But you've put your finger on the heart of the issue really.

You cannot reason with the irrational. No-one on this thread, on either side of the argument, is going to change their mind as a result of this
debate. Change can only come from within. I'm bowing out here, it's been enjoyable talking to some of you, perhaps catch you elsewhere on ATS.

I know you're done. However there is more logic in the other side of the debate, well ok in the "its not wrong" side. There are many sidesto the
debate. I can think of a militant homosexual activist from San Francisco (Zeke) who would claim heterosexuality is against Gods nature, and go on a
rant about that. Zealots be zealots, and zealots be idiots.

So your issue is with lust, not with homosexuality or masturbation or heterosexuality?

Correct. Homosexual lust, in my opinion, is just as detrimental as heterosexual lustful behavior. Detrimental in terms of coming to the truth of the
sexual embrace.

And you clearly state "to me [lust] are against our True Nature". So it is clearly a personal opinion. Not based on any fact other than a
personal feeling? One cannot really debate with a "personal feeling" or personal "biases"...

It is truly difficult to quantify love with science. It is fine if people are satisfied with carnal marriage, but there is a spiritual union available
for those who earnestly seek the most high form of love.

Where does this hate or fear of human sexual behavior come from?

I have realized the dead end that is sexual debauchery. I see how others have not come to such a conclusion because I was in such a boat at one time.
I used to justify it saying it was natural "look, rats don't stick to one mate, that must mean humans should not either"... yet in hindsight, basing
human standards on rats is just ridiculous.

And again... What is natural or this "True Nature" you talk about? You say it is difficult to understand what is natural, yet you use it as measuring
stick?

Love is natural. hard to define with logic, everyone can find it in their heart.

originally posted by: Astyanax
coprophagia in animals is both natural and normal.

If you want to eat poop to restore your biome, go ahead. There are many other tastier ways of restoring a healthy equilibrium in your gut.

Ah, the Logic Twister has favoured us with an appearance.

Why do you have to be abrasive? Seriously. I know this whole internet anonymity gives people the liberty to be insulting without any consequence on
their reputation, but for the love man, every other post I see from you is condescending towards someone.

Cats, dogs and many other mammals keep their young clean by consuming their excretions.

Rabbits and hares eat some of their own pellets to extract further nutrition from them.

Baby elephants, giant pandas, koalas and hippopotami eat their mothers’ droppings, which provide them with the gut bacteria necessary to digest
vegetation.

Our close relatives, chimpanzees and gorillas, eat their own droppings as well as that of other members of their species. Reason unknown, but it
happens quite commonly in the wild.

Because I despise the tendentiousness, casuistry and all-round dishonesty that form your customary modus operandi on this web site. It is not a
question of your views; I have affectionate relationships with people whose views are as objectionable and irrational as yours. It is the dishonesty,
the wilful twisting of logic and the truth.

Because I despise the tendentiousness, casuistry and all-round dishonesty that form your customary modus operandi on this web site.

Don't ruminate about me so much. The fact that you loathe me for speaking my mind is disturbing... I think different than you, don't lose sleep over
it.

It is not a question of your views; I have affectionate relationships with people whose views are as objectionable and irrational as yours. It
is the dishonesty, the wilful twisting of logic and the truth.

What do you think is the truth? You are trying to convince me that eating feces is natural in an attempt to invalidate my point that observations of
animals should not be the standard of human living. Animals also eat their own children... it is preposterous to think the habits of animals should be
a human standard. The fact you are still defending such a view is textbook "tendentiousness".

Do you get the logical fallacy of your argument here? That you've moved on to discuss different behaviors, than the topic at hand, and that these are
behaviors you choose to elicit a revulsion from the reader ?

You said to "leave religion out of this for one", yet it does appear that you are basing your judgments on "right" and "wrong" based on, well
religion.

While no one should be telling you to think otherwise, you also don't get to assume you are correct based on a logically flawed argument.

Do you get the logical fallacy of your argument here? That you've moved on to discuss different behaviors, than the topic at hand, and that these are
behaviors you choose to elicit a revulsion from the reader ?

It became relevant when people claimed that observations of animal behavior justifies such behavior in humans. I was pointing out examples of why this
should not be the standard.

It was stated (in the OP and else where) Homosexuality is not seen in the natural world

It was rebutted that it was.

OP argument invalidated.

ahhh, ok, I see what you were saying in earlier posts now. I was not defending that statement, homosexual behavior is observed in animals.

No you did not make that argument, but you also are using logically fallacious arguments too. Which to be fair might be because the topic disgusts
you?

The topic does not disgust me, I enjoy talking about it and have talked to many gay people openly about how they feel.

But regardless, what is the logical fallacy I am presenting? It was said that observing behavior in animals (nature) is what justifies something to be
natural... my rebuttal was the point that animals also eat their own poop and eat their own children - making the point that emulating animal behavior
should not be a natural human standard.

Animals also eat their own children... it is preposterous to think the habits of animals should be a human standard. The fact you are still
defending such a view is textbook "tendentiousness".

Yet another dishonest example. How many times does it have to be repeated that ‘natural’ does not mean ‘normal’? That saying something is
natural means only that. It does not follow that all natural behaviour is normative for human beings.

Please understand that I reply to you only with the greatest repugnance, and only do so when you produce a claim so brazenly false and immoral
that it demands to be exploded. Stay out of my way and I will happily stay out of yours.

oh wow, well i'm glad you enjoy talking about it
must be real nice to just have a casual chat and be entirely unaffected by
the fact that you are castigating and dehumanising an entire subgroup of people
treating their very existence like it's something reasonable to debate
when they only have to deal with this ignorant uninformed bigotted nonsense constantly their entire lives

oh wow, well i'm glad you enjoy talking about it
must be real nice to just have a casual chat and be entirely unaffected by
the fact that you are castigating and dehumanising an entire subgroup of people
treating their very existence like it's something reasonable to debate
when they only have to deal with this ignorant uninformed bigotted nonsense constantly their entire lives

i'm glad you're having fun

It's always enjoyable conversations. All homosexuals I have talked to about it enjoy talking about it, they do not get offended - don't be offended
for them.

It does not follow that all natural behaviour is normative for human beings.

Your first quote you say animals exhibit homosexual behavior, therefore homosexual behavior in humans is natural. Your next quote, after I presented
examples of why we should not base human standards on animal observations, you say that natural behavior should not indicate a norm for human beings
despite using it to attempt to prove a point in your prior post.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.